[NSA Opt-Out] Alternatives to Proprietary Softwares


Recommended Posts

Alot of new Linux users are always on the lookout for alternatives to proprietary software. In light of the NSA Prism leaks, more and more people are switching to open source alternatives.

 

I found this really cool website with a simple easy to use chart of proprietary software and free alternatives.

Check it out here: https://prism-break.org/

 

One thing the chart forgot to mention was a secure email provider and a secure cloud provider. They mentioned it, however, I would recomend hosting your own email and cloud so you have complete control over your data. It is also pretty inexpensive.

 

Questions/comments? :)

  • Like 5

Alot of new Linux users are always on the lookout for alternatives to proprietary software. In light of the NSA Prism leaks, more and more people are switching to open source alternatives.

 

I found this really cool website with a simple easy to use chart of proprietary software and free alternatives.

Check it out here: https://prism-break.org/

 

One thing the chart forgot to mention was a secure email provider and a secure cloud provider. I would recomend hosting your own email so you have complete control over your data. The same goes for cloud solutions: host your own.

 

Questions/comments? :)

This is actually pretty cool. Thanks for posting

I remember this website from when the NSA leaks first started but had totally forgotten about it! Looks much better and much more extensive now!

Great share :)

You really think open source is going to stop people from spying? :laugh:

 

Unless you host your own ISP, cloud server, files server, DHCP server, etc you're not breaking away from the spotlight.

  • Like 3

You really think open source is going to stop people from spying? :laugh:

 

Unless you host your own ISP, cloud server, files server, DHCP server, etc you're not breaking away from the spotlight.

 

You are correct on that. Nothing is fool proof. Unless you use tor or some other secure VPN solution, everything is logged via your ISP. The idea (at least to me) is not to eliminate spying (you're living in a dream world if you think that is possible), but control what information you share. What a user feels comfortable sharing is solely up to the user. This chart simply provides options and answers to the particular user's questions on what to replace with an audited OSS version.  :)

Get off the internet and don't use a cell phone or text, only way to really be off the radar

 

If the NSA really wants to track a specific person they can unless they are 100% off the grid, anything you do is just a placebo

Get off the internet and don't use a cell phone or text, only way to really be off the radar

 

If the NSA really wants to track a specific person they can unless they are 100% off the grid, anything you do is just a placebo

Also, NSA itself (both directly and indirectly) is a major player in FOSS - and has been for years.

 

There's not a thing shocking about it, either - NSA has habitually driven IT every which way it can.  (The same is true of GCHQ - the UK equivalent and partner of NSA.)

 

Think about it.  You're an intelligence agency, and you are basically told to find out everything you can about subject X - and you don't have human agents to do your digging.  (Remember, NSA, unlike the CIA or DIA, uses no HUMINT.)

 

That means that a LOT of what we take for granted today - in and out of IT - doubtless has been influenced, in some way, by "Uncle Sam's hearing aid" (which is how some referred to NSA pre-Snowden).

You really think open source is going to stop people from spying? :laugh:

 

Unless you host your own ISP, cloud server, files server, DHCP server, etc you're not breaking away from the spotlight.

 

Or you could be smart about it and use an encrypted tunnel, rather than blurt a bunch of nonsense.

 

Open source software doesn't require you to trust a 3rd-party that no government-requested backdoors have been installed, code can be audited. Closed source software is vulnerable in that regard.

'DuckDuckGo is a software-as-a-service (SaaS) hosted around the world that provides you with anonymous search results from these sources'

Funny, I remember someone proving that ddg is in-fact logged and completely UN-anonymous, so with that in mind I wouldn't really trust the list.

Open source software doesn't require you to trust a 3rd-party that no government-requested backdoors have been installed, code can be audited. Closed source software is vulnerable in that regard.

Doesn't do a bit of good when the information is being given up at the other end, regardless of whatever OS you're running. I seriously doubt the court orders are asking something along the lines of "give us a copy of all messages stored except from people using open source operating systems."

Doesn't do a bit of good when the information is being given up at the other end, regardless of whatever OS you're running. I seriously doubt the court orders are asking something along the lines of "give us a copy of all messages stored except from people using open source operating systems."

 

Which is why you also use an encrypted tunnel to an endpoint you trust.

Right, I got that part, but was commenting on the other part.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at then.

 

Using open source software will indeed not stop spying once data leaves your system, as much is common sense. The point was using OSS in such a case provide assurances that your system cannot be compromised by a unknown backdoor installed by a 3rd-party vendor.

 

Both approaches are required, as not having one defeats the other.

The point was using OSS in such a case provide assurances that your system cannot be compromised by a unknown backdoor installed by a 3rd-party vendor.

That's a bit of a stretch. The core OS as delivered from the distribution, sure, of course excluding services not on your system given by the distro, just a bit of tinfoil but who's to say Canonical isn't handing over your search terms and other user data from Unity for example? It's already going to Amazon, why not the NSA too? And no, I'm just pulling that out of thin air as a hypothetical example.. if it were true you wouldn't know. But after the fact? No. Any OS can be compromised regardless of who made it, especially since you would theoretically run software outside of what was given to you out of the box to begin with, even on Linux not all of some very common software is open source, and that's completely ignoring the obvious issues that can be done as malware. That's discounting any unproven tin-foil conspiracy theories of course.

That's a bit of a stretch. The core OS as delivered from the distribution, sure, of course excluding services not on your system given by the distro, just a bit of tinfoil but who's to say Canonical isn't handing over your search terms and other user data from Unity for example? It's already going to Amazon, why not the NSA too? And no, I'm just pulling that out of thin air as a hypothetical.. if it were true you wouldn't know. But after the fact? No. Any OS can be compromised regardless of who made it, especially since you would theoretically run software outside of what was given to you out of the box to begin with, even on Linux not all of some very common software is open source. That's discounting any unproven tin-foil conspiracy theories of course.

 

Problem with the above here is you assume I use Ubuntu. I don't trust Canonical to make good technical decisions, let alone that they're not passing on data.

 

Distros such as Arch or Gentoo however offer the platform in which you can establish trust.

Hello,

You are correct on that. Nothing is fool proof. Unless you use tor or some other secure VPN solution, everything is logged via your ISP. The idea (at least to me) is not to eliminate spying (you're living in a dream world if you think that is possible), but control what information you share. What a user feels comfortable sharing is solely up to the user. This chart simply provides options and answers to the particular user's questions on what to replace with an audited OSS version.  :)

tor AFAIK is open source. A small bug in the code could be found, not disclosed, and your encrypted information can still be seen.

With this, I want to comment that using open source software is not more or less secure. Im just stating a possibility...

That's a bit of a stretch. The core OS as delivered from the distribution, sure, of course excluding services not on your system given by the distro, just a bit of tinfoil but who's to say Canonical isn't handing over your search terms and other user data from Unity for example? It's already going to Amazon, why not the NSA too? And no, I'm just pulling that out of thin air as a hypothetical example.. if it were true you wouldn't know. But after the fact? No. Any OS can be compromised regardless of who made it, especially since you would theoretically run software outside of what was given to you out of the box to begin with, even on Linux not all of some very common software is open source, and that's completely ignoring the obvious issues that can be done as malware. That's discounting any unproven tin-foil conspiracy theories of course.

I think that Athernar's point was that with FLOSS, you can at least know the source is out there to be audited (and, if you are a tinfoil-hatter, you can audit it yourself).  There is zero chance of auditing closed source software.

Then, once you are comfortable that the source is clean, and not able to skim data off and send to an outsider, you can use secure tunnelling, personal encryption (GPG/PGP), TOR or any other such tools to ensure that you have the best chance of either being undetected, or at least suitably encrypted if your email, etc is intercepted.

Again. Tinfoil hat stuff.  I'm happy just as I am, and if the NSA wants to skim the headers of my emails to see I am getting spammed for reduced mortgage rates and such, so be it.  Google, Microsoft, my cable ISP etc all can already read the entire contents of my mail already.  I just don't get my panties in a twist over it.  Privacy is pretty much dead already.

  • Like 3

By using open source software, it makes it a hell of a lot harder, expensive, and time consuming for the NSA to do anything. The code is also open source--full audits are done every day on it and nobody has found anything. Do you really think the NSA is that stupid to put a backdoor in freely accessible code? Hell no they aren't! The NSA was laying low--if it wasn't for Snowden, we still wouldn't know about this. 

Hello,

tor AFAIK is open source. A small bug in the code could be found, not disclosed, and your encrypted information can still be seen.

With this, I want to comment that using open source software is not more or less secure. Im just stating a possibility...

 

Whoops marked you post as solved. Didn't mean to do that. :D

 

 

Anyway, It's open source. If a bug is found, it will be resolved very quickly. I highly doubt there's going to be a bug that compromises encryption.

By using open source software, it makes it a hell of a lot harder, expensive, and time consuming for the NSA to do anything. The code is also open source--full audits are done every day on it and nobody has found anything. Do you really think the NSA is that stupid to put a backdoor in freely accessible code? Hell no they aren't! The NSA was laying low--if it wasn't for Snowden, we still wouldn't know about this. 

Are you high? They put backdoors in encryption, NO-ONE noticed until snowdens leaked stuff. NSA made and released SELinux plus it was rumoured the FBI has a backdoor in the *BSD TCP/IP stack, no-ones found intentional bugs in either, that doesn't mean there isn't any, and if they have hidden backdoors you can bet your darn arse off they've tried VERY HARD to make sure no-one finds it.

Are you high? They put backdoors in encryption, NO-ONE noticed until snowdens leaked stuff. NSA made and released SELinux plus it was rumoured the FBI has a backdoor in the *BSD TCP/IP stack, no-ones found intentional bugs in either, that doesn't mean there isn't any, and if they have hidden backdoors you can bet your darn arse off they've tried VERY HARD to make sure no-one finds it.

Tinfoil hat?  GPG is open source. Look at the code that does the encryption yourself, if you please, or trust the rest of the world filled with experts.  No backdoors have been found.

If you still believe what you posted,I hope you are securely posting this from your doomsday bunker, on someone else's computer, on a connection you hand-made just a few minutes ago, and will blow up with TNT after you make each post.

Seriously, posting statements like yours just fools the gullible into believing a crazy conspiracy.

Tinfoil hat?  GPG is open source. Look at the code that does the encryption yourself, if you please, or trust the rest of the world filled with experts.  No backdoors have been found.

If you still believe what you posted,I hope you are securely posting this from your doomsday bunker, on someone else's computer, on a connection you hand-made just a few minutes ago, and will blow up with TNT after you make each post.

Seriously, posting statements like yours just fools the gullible into believing a crazy conspiracy.

GPG can be cracked through bruteforce, again, in snowdens leaked material.

And quite frankly I don't really care if they're secretly able to access my PC, I'd find it annoying but I'm not gonna just suddenly stop using any electrical items because of it.

Again. Tinfoil hat stuff.  I'm happy just as I am, and if the NSA wants to skim the headers of my emails to see I am getting spammed for reduced mortgage rates and such, so be it.  Google, Microsoft, my cable ISP etc all can already read the entire contents of my mail already.  I just don't get my panties in a twist over it.  Privacy is pretty much dead already.

 

I usually consider the internet to be like a huge shopping mall. I don't think I will have any privacy at either place. I think most people are fooled because they access the internet from the safety of their own homes.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!